![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I would opp for the use of the term bytes(by eight), because thats more know amongst the public instead of octets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.184.231.254 ( talk) 12:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
After reverting this removal with a thoughtful rewrite and edit summary, this edit which removes it again seems rude. Frankly, it's already in the best place in the article at the moment. If the information is "misplaced," restructure the lead – or find a better place; don't delete it. -- Pnm ( talk) 00:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Mention is made in the article of support in operating systems, but many users and organizations connect via an inexpensive router. Which of these have IPv6 support? Comcast's experimental deployment includes firmware for late model Linksys routers. What resources are available for SOHO users to find IPv6 routers? -- SpareSimian ( talk) 00:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:LEAD lays out guidelines on how many paragraphs, readability and what the typical layout should be, the current lead at least seems to be deliberately written to flout most of them. I tried to improve it, but kbrose simply reverted everything and then seemed to add an extra paragraph as well (it's supposed to be about 4 paragraphs long, it's more like 6 right now). Given the rate of viewing of this article I think that at least the lead needs to be greatly improved.
I'm not 100% sure because I'm pretty techy, but I think this article will read like complete doggerel to most readers from start to finish, whereas more or less anyone should at least be able to read the first paragraph. Rememberway ( talk) 00:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
2011 (UTC)
According to this exhaustion counter, IPv4 will be exhausted on March 3, 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.91.187.36 ( talk) 00:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The statement "As of February 3rd, 2011, the IPv4 pool has been completely exhausted." is false. All /8 address ranges have been allocated to RIRs, yes, but not all possible IP address blocks have been consumed. Those last 5 /8 blocks count for over 16 million possible addresses EACH, so those final blocks alone will take months to allocate to final consumers. The whole section should be rewritten to reflect this - preferably by someone with a mid-line between me and the original author. 60.241.144.125 ( talk) 01:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
(claimed in the text). It is not true. IPv6 subnets can have any size. /64 subnet is mandatory for subnets with stateless IP autoconfiguration only.
193.179.199.50 ( talk) 00:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, there a HIP, cool protocol similar to Mobil IP, but even more robust and more flexible, as it uses cryptography to achieve mobility. It practically makes Home Agent not needed in case of movements (but still are useful, in case two mobile nodes performed mobility action in exactly same time, and cannot send update requests to its peers).
I do not know what is a status of HIP, but I use it on some computers and is is wonderful. I for example do not need to remount my NFS mounts, or do not need to login again into ssh, jabber or irc servers when i move for example from home to school. And there is no triangular routing and no scalability problems like in MIP, so this works fullspeed (ignoring encryption and authentication, which isn't really any problem, as this is only done on end points).
This all works pretty well, and essentially acts like all-online VPN, but there is actual no tunnel, but lots of anonymous tunnels, which are handled transparently in real time. It works very good, but unfortunately HIP is not supported currently anywhere, and it is necessary to install necessary ipv6 extensions (actually ipv6/ipsec extensions), on both hosts (HIPL project or OpenHIP project, are two examples of software).
Anybody knows more about HIP, and would like to add something to article?
BTW. HIP can also work in IPv4, but even with NAT traversal extension its applications are limited. And even when using HIP over IPv4 it still uses IPv6 inside HIP package for real communication.
From other important informations, that from whole unicast IPv6 address space we have: selected pretty big chunk 2001:10::/28 (ala known as ORCHID), from which rest of prefix bits is used as an unique pseudo-random identifier which are connected with some cryptographic keys/hashes, so can be used safely to uniquely determine both sides of transmission regardless where they are located). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.82.207 ( talk) 19:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
It is not mentioned explicitly here what localhost is in IPv6. I think it always is ::1 but I'm not sure and expected to find the right answer in this article.
I saw Arthur Rubin and an IP having an edit war. This edit war is pointless and does nothing. Please stop and discuss. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if it's useful to add sites per operating system like http://www.linux-ipv6.org or http://www.windows-ipv6.org to the links.
One editor keeps removing mention of World IPv6 Day from the intro claiming "World IP6 day is a PR stunt, and of little actual significance (see, for example, the heise Online results from last September). A small reference in readiness, deployment or milestones (as exists) is more than enough." The event has gotten lots of coverage in the trade press and many large organizations are backing it as an important step toward deployment, so I think it is of interest to general readers who will not plow the entire article, and therefore it belong in the intro. I'd be interested in other editors' opinions.-- agr ( talk) 16:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Strangely enough, this domain redirects to this Wikipedia article. What's going on? Jasper Deng (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
is this to do with the NWO? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.4.13 ( talk) 14:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I read many places on the internet that the address space of the new IPv6 protocol is around 340 undecillion, and that is such an unbelivable number of addresses that we will never run out of addresses again. I see that this is also currently mentioned several places on the IPv6 wikiedia page But this gives a very misleading picture to the general public of how much more space we actually have for new devices with the IPv6 protocol.
First, (and this is an absolute theoretical maximum, according to the IPv6 protcol specification itself,) only the first 64 bits are used for routing purposes. This means only 2^64 different places can be on the IPv6 internet, as a theoretical maximum. The last 64 bits are reserved and can contain a MAC-address or random bits or other things, but they can not be used to route packets to different places.
If you have only have one /64 and you want to put 1000 different devices on the IPv6 internet using only this /64 subnet, you will find out that are in deep trouble. All 1000 of them must be on the same physical net, and this could give a lot of packet collisions on that net. For if you want to route between different physical subnets for your 1000 devices, you cannot use any IPv6 compliant router equipment for this, if you only have one /64 subnet.
Second, it is still misleading to say that the new net can have 2^64 different reachable devices. Most end users will be given a /48 or a /56. Many huge users will have more than a /48 also. If we say the average user have control over a /48, this only gives room for 2^48 or 281,474,976,710,656 different users, and each user typically have less than 10 devices.
Third, the IPv6 internet will become practically unroutable long before we reach even a tiny fraction of this thoretical limit of 2^48 users. Many central routing devices operate with a limit of 22-24 bits used for routing.
Below is my take of how to rewrite the section "Larger addres space", under the "Comparison with IPv4":
84.49.97.50 ( talk) 02:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The most important feature of IPv6 is a much larger address space than in IPv4. The length of an IPv6 address is 128 bits, compared to 32 bits in IPv4. [2] But only the first 64 bits are used to find a route to a specific device on the internet. (The last 64 bits can contian a mac-address or just random bits.) Then of those 64 bits used for routing, only the first 48 are used to differentiate between entities. Each person/company/entity are usually given at least 16 bits to use for their own subnet if they so desire. The address space therefore supports 248 or 281,474,976,710,656 different entities. This is 65 536 times the number of single IPv4 addresses. By comparison, this amounts to approximatly 41000 times the 6.8 billion people alive in 2010. [3]
84.49.97.50 ( talk) 02:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Another section I would like to mention is this:
The most important feature of IPv6 is a much larger address space than in IPv4. IPv6 addresses are 128 bits long, compared to only 32 bits previously. [4] While the IPv4 address space contains only about 4.3×109 (4.3 billion) addresses, IPv6 supports approximately 3.4×1038 (340 undecillion) unique addresses, deemed enough for the foreseeable future. [5]
The last reference here ( http://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/) is a prime example of a guy who has misunderstood how many more devices we will have room for with IPv6, and it should not be used as a source.
This gives a wrong picture, first since only 64 bits is used for routing, so only 2^64 different adresses can be possibly routed to in a meaningful way. And since each end user typically gets a /48 it means that only 48 of the 128 bits are used to find out which user to route to. So this means maximum 2^48 or 281,474,976,710,656 different users. Even of each user can have many devices, this is very different from the 340 undecillion unique addresses pictured in the above paragraph.
84.49.97.50 ( talk) 02:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Technically the new address space in IPv6 supports supports 2128 or approximately 3.4×1038 addresses. But that is a meaningless number to base comparisons on. Because the last 64 bits of the address space in IPv6 is to be the interface ID and there will never be 264 interfaces connected to one /64 subnet. So if we want to compare this new address space to the old IPv4 address space, a more fair comparison would be to say that IPv4 has a theoretical maximum of 232 devices, where IPv6 has a upper limit of 264 times the average number of devices per /64 subnet. If you want to compare the address space to the number of people on the earth, you should consider how big portion of the address space each user is likely to get. Under the IPv4 regime it was usually 1 IP (or not even that) per end user. Under IPv6 it seems to be at least a /56 per user, and may be even a /48 per user according to European guidelines cited above. So if you want to compare the new address space to the number of people on the earth, it is reasonable to compare the number of /48s with the number of people on the earth.
I think it is important that people is informed about that theoretical number of /48s available (if the address space is 100% effectivly used) are only about 40 000 times the current world population. Under IPv4 the address space was only 14% effectivly used, and under IPv6 we expect a bigger under-utilization of the address space, just because it is such a big address space to begin with. So if 10% of the IPv6 addresses can be effectivly used, then a maximum of only 4000 times the current world population of /48s are available. This is a far cry from the picture you get if you just dumbly compare the population to the huge number 2128. 84.49.97.50 ( talk) 01:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Here are some quotes to help establish what is likely to be the allocation size for end users:
84.49.97.40 ( talk) 03:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The thing is is that we can never know which one for sure, so the numbers you calculated above can't be inserted. Besides, many organizations get a /48 and use multiple users on their same block. It is just too ambiguous. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
@ 84.49.97.40: Why do you cite RFC 3177 when it has been obsoleted and replaced by RFC 6177? Concerning the effective address size I agree that something should be said about the number of supported end users/end sites, somewhere along the lines of Jasper. I only skimmed this discussion in my 5 min time in between so please check the revised RFC to see what you can do. Thanks, Nageh ( talk) 06:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please explain this term? It would be best to flesh out the article, as it refers to the term but nowhere is it defined. 108.18.128.85 ( talk) 04:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Sincerely, IPv6 documentation prefix. – 2001:db8:: ( rfc | diff) 06:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
i am working on the deployment section to make sure it is a summary of the deployment page.-- TheAnarcat ( talk) 00:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Power in Numbers: China Aims for High-Tech Primacy by DAVID BARBOZA and JOHN MARKOFF published New York Times December 5, 2011; excerpt ...
They show maps of China and the world, pinpointing China’s IPv6 links, the next generation of the Internet. China already has almost twice the number of Internet users as in the United States, and Dr. Wu, a computer scientist and director of the Chinese Educational and Research Network, points out that his nation is moving more quickly than any other in the world to deploy the new protocol. IPv6 — Internet Protocol version 6 — offers advanced security and privacy options, but more important, many more I.P. addresses, whose supply on the present Internet (IPv4) is almost exhausted. “China must move to IPv6,” Dr. Wu said. “In the U.S., some people don’t believe it’s urgent, but we believe it’s urgent.”
141.218.36.43 ( talk) 21:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
rfc2460
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I would opp for the use of the term bytes(by eight), because thats more know amongst the public instead of octets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.184.231.254 ( talk) 12:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
After reverting this removal with a thoughtful rewrite and edit summary, this edit which removes it again seems rude. Frankly, it's already in the best place in the article at the moment. If the information is "misplaced," restructure the lead – or find a better place; don't delete it. -- Pnm ( talk) 00:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Mention is made in the article of support in operating systems, but many users and organizations connect via an inexpensive router. Which of these have IPv6 support? Comcast's experimental deployment includes firmware for late model Linksys routers. What resources are available for SOHO users to find IPv6 routers? -- SpareSimian ( talk) 00:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:LEAD lays out guidelines on how many paragraphs, readability and what the typical layout should be, the current lead at least seems to be deliberately written to flout most of them. I tried to improve it, but kbrose simply reverted everything and then seemed to add an extra paragraph as well (it's supposed to be about 4 paragraphs long, it's more like 6 right now). Given the rate of viewing of this article I think that at least the lead needs to be greatly improved.
I'm not 100% sure because I'm pretty techy, but I think this article will read like complete doggerel to most readers from start to finish, whereas more or less anyone should at least be able to read the first paragraph. Rememberway ( talk) 00:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
2011 (UTC)
According to this exhaustion counter, IPv4 will be exhausted on March 3, 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.91.187.36 ( talk) 00:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The statement "As of February 3rd, 2011, the IPv4 pool has been completely exhausted." is false. All /8 address ranges have been allocated to RIRs, yes, but not all possible IP address blocks have been consumed. Those last 5 /8 blocks count for over 16 million possible addresses EACH, so those final blocks alone will take months to allocate to final consumers. The whole section should be rewritten to reflect this - preferably by someone with a mid-line between me and the original author. 60.241.144.125 ( talk) 01:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
(claimed in the text). It is not true. IPv6 subnets can have any size. /64 subnet is mandatory for subnets with stateless IP autoconfiguration only.
193.179.199.50 ( talk) 00:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, there a HIP, cool protocol similar to Mobil IP, but even more robust and more flexible, as it uses cryptography to achieve mobility. It practically makes Home Agent not needed in case of movements (but still are useful, in case two mobile nodes performed mobility action in exactly same time, and cannot send update requests to its peers).
I do not know what is a status of HIP, but I use it on some computers and is is wonderful. I for example do not need to remount my NFS mounts, or do not need to login again into ssh, jabber or irc servers when i move for example from home to school. And there is no triangular routing and no scalability problems like in MIP, so this works fullspeed (ignoring encryption and authentication, which isn't really any problem, as this is only done on end points).
This all works pretty well, and essentially acts like all-online VPN, but there is actual no tunnel, but lots of anonymous tunnels, which are handled transparently in real time. It works very good, but unfortunately HIP is not supported currently anywhere, and it is necessary to install necessary ipv6 extensions (actually ipv6/ipsec extensions), on both hosts (HIPL project or OpenHIP project, are two examples of software).
Anybody knows more about HIP, and would like to add something to article?
BTW. HIP can also work in IPv4, but even with NAT traversal extension its applications are limited. And even when using HIP over IPv4 it still uses IPv6 inside HIP package for real communication.
From other important informations, that from whole unicast IPv6 address space we have: selected pretty big chunk 2001:10::/28 (ala known as ORCHID), from which rest of prefix bits is used as an unique pseudo-random identifier which are connected with some cryptographic keys/hashes, so can be used safely to uniquely determine both sides of transmission regardless where they are located). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.82.207 ( talk) 19:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
It is not mentioned explicitly here what localhost is in IPv6. I think it always is ::1 but I'm not sure and expected to find the right answer in this article.
I saw Arthur Rubin and an IP having an edit war. This edit war is pointless and does nothing. Please stop and discuss. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if it's useful to add sites per operating system like http://www.linux-ipv6.org or http://www.windows-ipv6.org to the links.
One editor keeps removing mention of World IPv6 Day from the intro claiming "World IP6 day is a PR stunt, and of little actual significance (see, for example, the heise Online results from last September). A small reference in readiness, deployment or milestones (as exists) is more than enough." The event has gotten lots of coverage in the trade press and many large organizations are backing it as an important step toward deployment, so I think it is of interest to general readers who will not plow the entire article, and therefore it belong in the intro. I'd be interested in other editors' opinions.-- agr ( talk) 16:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Strangely enough, this domain redirects to this Wikipedia article. What's going on? Jasper Deng (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
is this to do with the NWO? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.4.13 ( talk) 14:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I read many places on the internet that the address space of the new IPv6 protocol is around 340 undecillion, and that is such an unbelivable number of addresses that we will never run out of addresses again. I see that this is also currently mentioned several places on the IPv6 wikiedia page But this gives a very misleading picture to the general public of how much more space we actually have for new devices with the IPv6 protocol.
First, (and this is an absolute theoretical maximum, according to the IPv6 protcol specification itself,) only the first 64 bits are used for routing purposes. This means only 2^64 different places can be on the IPv6 internet, as a theoretical maximum. The last 64 bits are reserved and can contain a MAC-address or random bits or other things, but they can not be used to route packets to different places.
If you have only have one /64 and you want to put 1000 different devices on the IPv6 internet using only this /64 subnet, you will find out that are in deep trouble. All 1000 of them must be on the same physical net, and this could give a lot of packet collisions on that net. For if you want to route between different physical subnets for your 1000 devices, you cannot use any IPv6 compliant router equipment for this, if you only have one /64 subnet.
Second, it is still misleading to say that the new net can have 2^64 different reachable devices. Most end users will be given a /48 or a /56. Many huge users will have more than a /48 also. If we say the average user have control over a /48, this only gives room for 2^48 or 281,474,976,710,656 different users, and each user typically have less than 10 devices.
Third, the IPv6 internet will become practically unroutable long before we reach even a tiny fraction of this thoretical limit of 2^48 users. Many central routing devices operate with a limit of 22-24 bits used for routing.
Below is my take of how to rewrite the section "Larger addres space", under the "Comparison with IPv4":
84.49.97.50 ( talk) 02:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The most important feature of IPv6 is a much larger address space than in IPv4. The length of an IPv6 address is 128 bits, compared to 32 bits in IPv4. [2] But only the first 64 bits are used to find a route to a specific device on the internet. (The last 64 bits can contian a mac-address or just random bits.) Then of those 64 bits used for routing, only the first 48 are used to differentiate between entities. Each person/company/entity are usually given at least 16 bits to use for their own subnet if they so desire. The address space therefore supports 248 or 281,474,976,710,656 different entities. This is 65 536 times the number of single IPv4 addresses. By comparison, this amounts to approximatly 41000 times the 6.8 billion people alive in 2010. [3]
84.49.97.50 ( talk) 02:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Another section I would like to mention is this:
The most important feature of IPv6 is a much larger address space than in IPv4. IPv6 addresses are 128 bits long, compared to only 32 bits previously. [4] While the IPv4 address space contains only about 4.3×109 (4.3 billion) addresses, IPv6 supports approximately 3.4×1038 (340 undecillion) unique addresses, deemed enough for the foreseeable future. [5]
The last reference here ( http://pthree.org/2009/03/08/the-sheer-size-of-ipv6/) is a prime example of a guy who has misunderstood how many more devices we will have room for with IPv6, and it should not be used as a source.
This gives a wrong picture, first since only 64 bits is used for routing, so only 2^64 different adresses can be possibly routed to in a meaningful way. And since each end user typically gets a /48 it means that only 48 of the 128 bits are used to find out which user to route to. So this means maximum 2^48 or 281,474,976,710,656 different users. Even of each user can have many devices, this is very different from the 340 undecillion unique addresses pictured in the above paragraph.
84.49.97.50 ( talk) 02:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Technically the new address space in IPv6 supports supports 2128 or approximately 3.4×1038 addresses. But that is a meaningless number to base comparisons on. Because the last 64 bits of the address space in IPv6 is to be the interface ID and there will never be 264 interfaces connected to one /64 subnet. So if we want to compare this new address space to the old IPv4 address space, a more fair comparison would be to say that IPv4 has a theoretical maximum of 232 devices, where IPv6 has a upper limit of 264 times the average number of devices per /64 subnet. If you want to compare the address space to the number of people on the earth, you should consider how big portion of the address space each user is likely to get. Under the IPv4 regime it was usually 1 IP (or not even that) per end user. Under IPv6 it seems to be at least a /56 per user, and may be even a /48 per user according to European guidelines cited above. So if you want to compare the new address space to the number of people on the earth, it is reasonable to compare the number of /48s with the number of people on the earth.
I think it is important that people is informed about that theoretical number of /48s available (if the address space is 100% effectivly used) are only about 40 000 times the current world population. Under IPv4 the address space was only 14% effectivly used, and under IPv6 we expect a bigger under-utilization of the address space, just because it is such a big address space to begin with. So if 10% of the IPv6 addresses can be effectivly used, then a maximum of only 4000 times the current world population of /48s are available. This is a far cry from the picture you get if you just dumbly compare the population to the huge number 2128. 84.49.97.50 ( talk) 01:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Here are some quotes to help establish what is likely to be the allocation size for end users:
84.49.97.40 ( talk) 03:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The thing is is that we can never know which one for sure, so the numbers you calculated above can't be inserted. Besides, many organizations get a /48 and use multiple users on their same block. It is just too ambiguous. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
@ 84.49.97.40: Why do you cite RFC 3177 when it has been obsoleted and replaced by RFC 6177? Concerning the effective address size I agree that something should be said about the number of supported end users/end sites, somewhere along the lines of Jasper. I only skimmed this discussion in my 5 min time in between so please check the revised RFC to see what you can do. Thanks, Nageh ( talk) 06:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please explain this term? It would be best to flesh out the article, as it refers to the term but nowhere is it defined. 108.18.128.85 ( talk) 04:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Sincerely, IPv6 documentation prefix. – 2001:db8:: ( rfc | diff) 06:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
i am working on the deployment section to make sure it is a summary of the deployment page.-- TheAnarcat ( talk) 00:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Power in Numbers: China Aims for High-Tech Primacy by DAVID BARBOZA and JOHN MARKOFF published New York Times December 5, 2011; excerpt ...
They show maps of China and the world, pinpointing China’s IPv6 links, the next generation of the Internet. China already has almost twice the number of Internet users as in the United States, and Dr. Wu, a computer scientist and director of the Chinese Educational and Research Network, points out that his nation is moving more quickly than any other in the world to deploy the new protocol. IPv6 — Internet Protocol version 6 — offers advanced security and privacy options, but more important, many more I.P. addresses, whose supply on the present Internet (IPv4) is almost exhausted. “China must move to IPv6,” Dr. Wu said. “In the U.S., some people don’t believe it’s urgent, but we believe it’s urgent.”
141.218.36.43 ( talk) 21:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
rfc2460
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).